Why the ‘good bishops’ keep disappointing the faithful

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Sep 12, 2025

Catholic World Report has done a great service to readers today, by dipping into the magazine’s archives and posting an article by the late, great James Hitchcock, Conservative Bishops, Liberal Results. Originally published in the May 1995 issue (when I was serving as editor), the article explores a phenomenon that still puzzles many faithful Catholics. Why is it that so many good bishops—bishops who have the enthusiastic support of Catholics loyal to the perennial traditions of the Church—fail to bring about any discernible changes in the actual working of their dioceses?

Although Jim Hitchcock died only two months ago, a long struggle with Parkinson’s disease had silenced him for years, and younger readers may not be familiar with his work. For them, this article from Catholic World Report is a must. He was an extremely perceptive observer of Church history, who thought and wrote with unusual clarity. His analysis offers cogent answers to the questions that many Catholics are still asking.

The terms “conservative” and “liberal” are always somewhat misleading when applied to Catholic controversies. But in the absence of more accurate alternatives (which would require a fair amount of explanation), they provide a simple way to summarize the tensions that have beset that Catholic Church in the years since Vatican II. By 1995, when the Hitchcock essay appeared, the “conservative” Catholics—those devoted to the defense of Church doctrines and disciplines—had suffered through three decades of tumultuous change, while the “liberals”—those pressing for more dramatic change—were pressing their advantage.

The destabilization of the Catholic world—and with it, the precipitous decline in the number of people actively practicing the faith—was most evident during the 1970s. The election of Pope John Paul II gave the “conservatives” a burst of hope, a belief that the chaos might be over, sanity and good order restored, and what another historian, Paul Johnson, described as the Catholic Restoration might be underway.

Unfortunately, despite the undeniable excitement that St. John Paul II generated, and the emergence of a new generation of enthusiastic “JPII Catholics,” that restoration had never materialized—at least not in the typical American parish—by the time Hitchcock was writing. Nor would it materialize in the years that followed, during the pontificate of Benedict XVI. Pope John Paul II appointed many fine, orthodox new bishops to American dioceses; Pope Benedict’s record was even more impressive. Still the liberal drift was not checked. Why not?

Hitchcock’s answer to that question, put simply, is that liberal bishops were anxious to pursue changes in the Church, while conservative bishops were content to maintain the status quo—even if the status quo they inherited represented a departure from Catholic tradition. “With very few exceptions,” Hitchcock explains, “’conservative’ bishops do not go beyond what is strictly mandated by official Church teaching or policy.”

But again, to discuss this conflict as a tension between “liberals” and “conservatives” is misleading, because, Hitchcock observed, it “in effect means giving legitimacy to positions which actively diverge from one or another official Church teaching, which are reduced to opinions or matters of taste, almost to matters of temperament—some people move faster than others and are more comfortable with change.” In many cases the “liberal” leaders were questioning, undermining, or even plainly rejecting Church teachings. Attacks on Catholic tradition were bold; the defenders were cautious.

And that was in 1995, before the election of Pope Francis, whose reign revived all the centrifugal pressures of the 1970s. For twelve years the “conservative” bishops appointed by the previous Pontiffs did their best to weather the storm, fully aware that if they came into conflict with “liberal” forces in their dioceses they could expect no help from Rome—while more ambitious “liberal” prelates, promoted by Pope Francis, renewed their offensive.

Now under Pope Leo, faithful Catholics hope for a restoration, and look to the “good” bishops—the many bishops who will, when questioned, embrace all the teachings of the Church—for leadership. Will they be disappointed again? (Or perhaps I should ask, will they be disappointed—still?)

The answer will depend on the extent to which the “good” bishops are prepared to assert their leadership authority, to go beyond what is strictly required of them, to take strong public stands and face the inevitable storms of criticism. What Jim Hitchcock wrote thirty years ago is even more accurate today:

Of one American bishop, a newspaper has said that he provoked more controversy during his first year in office than his predecessor did in twenty. While no one ought to welcome controversy for its own sake, the grim realities of the situation dictate that similar things will be said about any bishop who sincerely tries to fulfill his divine commission.